(European Court of Human Rights, 1975)
-Prisoner in Great Britain accused in a riot.
-He attempted to contact his legislator by mail to explain his wrongful accusation, but the letter was
not allowed to leave the prison.
-It came to light that he hadn’t been a part of the riot. Although never charged, his prison record reflected his being on the list.
-He attempted to petition the Secretary of State to request a transfer and to request he be allowed to contact a civil lawyer.
-The prison also stopped this letter.
-The prisoner brought a cause of action for violation of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights, which the UK had signed.
HOLDING 1: The prison violated the treaty b/c Article 6, sec. 1 said “everyone
is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable amount of time.”
ANALYSIS (Holding 1):
-The right to access constitutes an inherent element of Art 6, §1.
-It was not for the prison or Secretary to decide on the prisoner’s possible case against the prison.
HOLDING 2: The prison violated Article 8, §§1 and 2 that “everyone has a right to respect for…his correspondence” and “there shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right.
ANALYSIS (Holding 2):
-Impeding correspondence is interference.
-Court looked to express sources (was more objective)
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?